I’m so rizzed up about using slang wrong

I’m curious, doesn’t WhatsApp require a phone number to be attached to an account? As in, I thought activating it doesn’t work on devices without a SIM card?

It’s a first step. One thing this will (hopefully) provide is more accurate data on exactly how much wealth is being hoarded. The current data is being assumed to be underestimating the actual numbers

Well if it is skipping like a dipshit, talks like a dipshit, looks like a dipshit…

I’m 27 and that comment didn’t make any sense to me. The oldening has officially begun

Hm yes, but if someone takes a picture of me without me asking for it that’s different

That headline had me confused a bit before I realised it’s about stuff originating from Kazakhstan

For background, Kristall is obviously cristal in German, which is associated with cleanliness and purity and high value. The name plays into the idea of “cleaning” Germany from the “dirty” parts of society

It’s actually uncommon to refer to the November pogrom as Kristallnacht in German because it’s the positive spin the Nazis put to that. It’s not outright taboo but it can be a dog whistle

I’m not sure I see the difference between bringing big oil down versus bringing animal based food down. Both are critical pillars of our current societies, changing that takes a lot of work (even if we were to convince everyone that that change needs to be done). My personal decisions don’t really matter as long as everyone else keeps going the way they are.

That being said I basically have a vegan diet and I very rarely use transportation that runs directly on oil. I just don’t think that gives my arguments for societal changes any more weight. These arguments are right in my opinion, independent of whether I already live the change or just argue that the proposed changes would be beneficial.q

Why would BP change if you don’t?

Because BP isn’t a human being it is a legal entity without inherent value other than those that we as a society allow it to have. If society decides BP should stop existing that’s just a logistical effort (replacing energy needs, finding jobs for the workers there etc etc) where as if society decides I should stop existing that’s a crime against humanity. Putting legal entities and humans on the same level here is a false premise in my eyes.

Also: Arguing for removing BP from the world IS showing a willingness to change personally because it means changing a lot of other stuff too that will affect everyones live.

And I think it’s important to change yourself as well, so you can demand it from others.

I’d argue that that only works on small scales. For big changes we need to agree beforehand that we want and will do the change and then do that change together. Demanding someone jump first won’t work here.

I don’t think that being part of the current society and doing what that society pushes people to do is a reason to dismiss criticism of that same society. I can acknowledge that I am flawed, that I am part of the problem, and still argue for change on a societal level. Especially because it is easier to act responsibly when everyone does

Dingos would hunt at packice holes if they had access to them?

Or where that mysterious starvation is coming from that might possibly be going on

I think protesting against the vote of the average Joe in a way that affects the average Joe is quite valid. The politicians got voted for their policies, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they just shifted their whole position because of a protests that are expressing quite old ideas. The average Joe has to stand up and vote for people that actually want the change we need.

The pressure regarding queer rights was successful because it became a less and less favourable position to be against those same rights in the public view. Being conservative regarding fighting the climate change is still a pretty favourable position so not enough pressure can be built by protests against politicians alone.

And, one aspect that is overlooked in the discussion, at least in my opinion: People are allowed to be angry at the state of the world and the popular opinions, and express that anger publicly and in the face of the general public. This is a valid thing to do.

Maybe I missed it but it seems the average Joe voted for people that are responsible for what’s going on right now instead of trying to change direction drastically right?

and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.

I do agree with that, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying that there is a difference between political information and calls to action. And I don’t think making that separation and acting on one but not the other is not harmful but rather helpful for democracy as it allows more people to participate, namely those that would otherwise have to fear calls for violence against them.

That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.

The point of this law is that having to deal with calls to violence towards a group will likely alter the behaviour of that group in a negative way as well as create direct risks for that group. There is a benefit towards more diversity to restrict some speech. I think this is a good tradeoff.

Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.

Nope that is basically what’s happening here, but it is not really the fault of the people that got elected. We elected a very diverse mix of parties and it is hard to make coalitions in this political climate. This has been the case for a long time but for a lot of the past decades it was enough for two parties to form a coalition for a majority. With the right-wing extremists getting this many votes this has changed towards three or even four parties being involved for majority talks. It’s just honestly a big mess leaving no-one satisfied which in turn only feeds the populists that paint the picture of germany as a failing state.

I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.

I’m not sure I’d say it is close to autocracies, it is more a plutocracy where the money gets you more political influence, similar to the times when voting rights depended on your wealth but less direct making everything looking more shady in the process. This just fuels suspicions and undermines trust in the institutions which is how you get at least minority support for parties that want to openly destroy the system.

A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).

I’m not a big fan of direct democracy on large scales mostly because I honestly don’t think I have the time and energy to have an informed opinion on everything that needs to be decided on in a functioning state. Which makes me assumes that that is probably true for at least a lot of other people too. I like the idea of randomly selected representatives that get compensated to pause their jobs for a period of a few years. It gets rid of some of the bad incentives the party systems have created with people focusing on political “careers” making themselves dependent on being popular.

The difference is that we can’t do so for political information in a democracy

I think I see where I failed to communicate. The laws that germany enacted are not about information. They are for (or rather against) instigating hate and violence against groups of people. Which I wouldn’t classify as ‘political information’. I do get that that is a slippery slope and that this tool needs to be used with a lot of caution and oversight. But I think it is a necessary tool especially because of this:

It is, however, reasonable for the majority to enact advertising protections that would benefit the dumb/manipulable minority.

A manipulable minority that acts on these calls to violence is enough to deeply damage a democracy.

Once again, the question is, “Are the majority of people too dumb or easily manipulated to be trusted with the system?” If so, then we should do away with the system altogether and have a government of philosopher-kings decide how resources should be distributed.

An important thing to remember is that a large enough minority can really disturb a democratic system. We are seeing this right now in germanies eastern states where the AfD has won about 30% of the votes making any coalition between the other parties very unfavourable. No-one currently knows what the coalition talks will resolve to. The majority did vote for democratic parties but that isn’t enough, it has to be an overhelming majority that votes for democratic parties.

Also: I’d argue that representative democracies are a lot more susceptible to this kind of flaw where parties have to resort to manipulation to get the votes of people. Other forms of democracy do not have that flaw as extensively. We do not necessarily have to get rid of democracy to fix or at least improve that flaw.

I have a question for you. Do you think advertising works not just as an informative medium but as a manipulative medium as well? Do people have free will while shopping or are they completely following whatever ad is in front of their faces? Or is it maybe a middle ground between the two extremes that’s actually the truth?

This isn’t about ideas it is about calling for violence towards people. This isn’t how you get Nazis this is the “you already have Nazis and need to do something about it”

Also, funnily enough, the proletariat or what’s left of it, are the ones currently flocking to the right-wing extremist party here in Germany.